Get Plan Execution Hints

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that it does not invoke models or subagents, and that hints are provider-neutral and include repository-reasoning—useful behavioral context beyond the structured safety flags.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Derive' and packs all essential information—purpose, inputs, outputs, and behavioral constraints—without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description communicates the core purpose and the categories of hints returned. It omits details about the result structure or how itemId affects behavior, but the schema covers the parameters, and the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most contexts.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters: 'plan' is described as a plan/v1 or project-test-plan/v1 artifact, and 'itemId' as an optional stable id. The description does not add any parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'derive' and clearly states the resource ('a plan') and the outputs (execution, context, parallel-safety, repository-reasoning hints). It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'provider-neutral' and 'without invoking models or subagents', which are unique attributes not present in most other tool names.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies a clear usage context: when you have a plan and need hints without additional model or subagent calls. It provides a practical differentiator ('without invoking models or subagents'), suggesting when this lighter-weight analysis is appropriate, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.